Here's the earlier email which has the feature comparison: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/527a29b45c52a042c122c96754804983b1447b7409ffec3d635b7143@%3Cdev.mesos.apache.org%3E
The list is still accurate, except that precompiled headers are no longer "upcoming". On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Jeff Coffler < jeff.coff...@microsoft.com.invalid> wrote: > Hi Aaron, > > I'd like to expand on what Andy said: > > If you want cross-platform development, then cmake is the only way to go. > For example, if you want to build on Windows, you MUST use cmake. We > anticipate, over time, that cmake will replace the autotools build (we do > not want to maintain two build systems). The cmake system is also much more > expandable (for example, while this hasn't been done on Linux, Windows had > dramatic speed improvements through the use of precompiled headers - if > someone was inclined to spend the time on Linux, I imagine similar speed > improvements are possible). Note, by the way, that ReviewBot runs on > Windows; if you break the Windows build, you need to fix it prior to > committing changes. > > I would say: If you don't care about Java or Python bindings, and you're > doing development (i.e. you don't need an installable package), then cmake > is a fine way to go. But if you need something that only autotools does > today, then you don't really have a choice. Regardless, when you commit a > change, you need to be sure that both build systems work properly. > > Note that cmake is compatible with ccache. Also, FWIW, cmake also gives > you very nice "percentage done" notifications on Linux (i.e. 85% done, or > whatever), which is super nice to know how far along you are. That's a very > cool feature that I just love. > > I agree that we sorely need a concise list of features that are missing. > We need to understand what's missing, and judge how often missing features > are used, in order to "fully bake" the cmake build system in Mesos. > > /Jeff > > -----Original Message----- > From: Andy Schwartzmeyer [mailto:andsc...@microsoft.com.INVALID] > Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 4:12 PM > To: dev@mesos.apache.org > Subject: RE: The state of cmake > > Hi Aaron, > > The biggest difference right now is that the Java and Python bindings are > not built whatsoever with the CMake build system. We also do not have an > install target, so the CMake output is kind of stuck in "developer mode" > and it won't generate an installable package. > > I probably would not yet recommend the CMake build system for production > use. > > As far as what features are missing, I'm not aware of a concise list, but > agree this is needed. Perhaps Joseph knows of one. If one does not exist at > all, perhaps it's time we audit the issues and do a comparison of the two > build systems as they stand now to generate this list. > > Cheers, > > Andy > > From: Wood, Aaron<mailto:aaron.w...@verizon.com> > Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 4:00 PM > To: dev<mailto:dev@mesos.apache.org> > Subject: The state of cmake > > Hi all, > > I'm curious as to what the current state of came is on Linux. I noticed > that some features that are present in the autotools build are not yet in > cmake. Also, the output from a successful cmake build looks a bit different > as far as the number of libraries that are produced and the number of > symlinks created. > > While the output of a cmake build does seem to work fine on Linux, is > there anything to be aware of that would cause issues for a production > release? Is there a list of features somewhere that are in autotools but > not yet in cmake? Does anyone think it is an exceptionally bad idea to use > the current cmake system to produce binaries for production use? > > Thanks! > -Aaron > >
